March 18, 2011

Categories:

It's always difficult to assess the precise fallout from a political mistake 20 months before an election.

In the case of Sen. Claire McCaskill's air travel snafu, there are two major points to be made.

One is that the accounting error undoubtedly hurts her branding as a watchdog of fiscal transparency and accountability. The ads of McCaskill "the hypocrite" -- advocating one thing, while doing another, will write themselves. McCaskill's team is well aware of this.

On the other hand, McCaskill handled the mistake in best possible way. She was forthright, showed contrition and made no excuses. She was also fortunate in the timing. If this had been uncovered in August of 2012, it might be a different story. The senator also benefits from the story being complicated and nuanced and now muddied by partisan interference.

Above all, this may be a test of the goodwill McCaskill has built up with Missourians. If they trust the brand she's crafted of being a straight-talking fiscal hawk, they may give her a pass.

Scott Wong and I take a deeper look at the fallout from what Republicans have dubbed as 'Air Claire' today. Some key graphs from both sides of the argument:

While Republicans will undoubtedly relish portraying McCaskill as another Democrat who fails to live up to the high standard she sets for others, Democrats argue her quick forthright approach helps shields her from the hypocrisy charge.

“All the flight information was publicly available. She wasn’t hiding anything, so I don’t think the transparency attack resonates,” one Democratic elected official in Missouri said.

The story would only gain traction among voters if more mistakes are found in her financial records, the Democrat said.

“I think it had the potential to have an impact, but since Claire handled it immediately and correctly by paying the money and admitting the mistake, it won’t have any long-term impact unless the Senate Ethics Committee actually takes it up, which is pretty implausible,” said the Democrat.

But back home, Republicans say the controversy will hurt her.

“This is a very big problem for her because voters care about a candidate’s credibility. Claire McCaskill has attempted to market herself as a so-called government watchdog and this issue strikes at the heart of that claim” said Rich Chrismer, a GOP operative who advised Blunt’s 2010 campaign.

“It’s hard to argue that Claire McCaskill wasn’t moving to claim the mantle of transparency and accountability, so she has already caused lasting damage to the brand she was attempting to create.”

Dave Catanese labels McCaskill's stealing taxpayer money a "snafu."
If a Democratic gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, the media calls it a "snafu." If a Republican, the media calls it a "scandal."

She was notified of the mistake, she paid back the gov't, and called it her embarrassing mistake. She didn't say "mistakes were made," or "lessons were learned," she owned it and she corrected it. If making and fixing one mistake once makes a candidate a hypocrite, then the GOP has no presidential hopeful in 2012...